Besides the problems with the article (which i have not read in details),
the fact that Indians make "commercial movies" should not lead you to
normalize the brutality of western imperialism and epidemic violence done
to third world people. did you ever attempt to think why Indian directors
shift to producing commercial movies?
Actually, you don't need to go to third world.Indians were killed here.
African Americans were used as slave labor, and they are still treated as
non-humans. Criticizing this has nothing to do with "returning to the
innocence and purity" of the third world. On the contrary, white
men wanted to create this "purity" by _actually_ eliminating people. It
was not so long ago-- eugenic laws were practiced here till 1965.
Mine
>> Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles
>> to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich?
>Someone calls this attitude "getting high on paradise": that the West
>may find redemption by returning to the innocence and purity of the
>past and that this past may be found in the Third World; which is why
>I heard once that Jameson was rather upset when Indian movie
>directors he admired wanted to make more "commercial" films, he
>opined against it and insisted they keep making movies for people
>like him, which even if they make no money, he can always write about
>it; not that he had planned to cash on that! But now I may be half
>teasing.
